DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI V. EURO PRATIK ISPAT P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4885/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3645 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH PATHADE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I , MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR , ACCO UNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. : 4885 /MUM/20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 0 7 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8(1), ROOM NO. 26 0 A, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 VS M/S EURO PRATIK ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED , 4, USHA NIKETAN, MAHANT, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 057 . PAN: AABCE 3210 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH PATHADE RESPONDENT BY : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 08 - 201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 - 08 - 2016 ORDER , : PER AMIT SHUKLA , J M: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 3 .0 5 .20 1 4 , PASSED BY L D. CIT(A PPEALS ) - 16, MUMBAI , IN RELATION T O THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR ADMITTED THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, PENALTY ON SAME DISALLOWANCE WILL NOT SUSTAIN. 2 M/S EURO PRATIK ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED ITA 4885 /MUM/201 4 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACT WHICH IS CULLED OUT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, W E FIND THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,27,23,266/ - ON THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, WHICH AS PER THE AO HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BEFORE 31 ST MARCH, 2005 THOUGH NOT PUT TO USE AND THE PROVISION OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) REL ATING TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN CASES WHERE NEW MACHINERY ARE INSTALLED AFTER 31 ST MARCH, 2005. ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT THOUGH THE MACHINERIES WERE SHOWN AS CAPITAL - WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ON 31.03.2005, BUT WERE PUT TO USE IN THIS FINAN CIAL YEAR AND HENCE WAS INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2. 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NOTED THAT, NOW IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 02.04. 2014 IN ITA NO.1682/MUM/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 HA S HELD THAT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION @ 10%. IN WAKE OF THE AFORESAID FACT THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION HA S BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, WE HOL D THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED ON SUCH A DISALLOWANCE HAS NO LEGS TO STAND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ST AN D S DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( ) ( RAMIT KOCHAR ) ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 16 TH AUGUST , 2016 3 M/S EURO PRATIK ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED ITA 4885 /MUM/201 4 / COPY TO: - 1 ) / THE APPELLANT. 2 ) / THE RESPONDENT. 3 ) THE CIT(A) 16 , MUMBAI. 4 ) THE CIT 8 , MUMBAI. 5 ) , , / THE D.R. I BENCH, MUMBAI. 6 ) \ COPY TO GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / / , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * . . *CHAVAN, SR.PS